Rational is defined as that which adheres to the principles and that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into The Rational.

The Rational is defined as an implementation of the Principles that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into Rational Paradigms.

Property is defined as any given lever, mechanism, or machine.

This is a model, so the question “why” will remain a loose cannon and red hearing. Instead we will describe a hypothesise that we pray will guide us to an implementable model.

This attempt to model what we call Persistence (rather than existence or the existential) requires that we restructure our understanding of gravity and mass. We have attempted and will continue to construct Robust definitions that build on Simple Attributes, Conditions, and Properties defined in our lexicon. Eventually we will arrive back at a Rational encapsulation of another phenomenon that is still, to most, clearly as poorly understood as mass, gravity, Density, and Ambivalence. Our model arises as an attempt to understand Ambivalence. The model asserts that ambivalence is central to what it means to be Homo Sapiens : Terra Virtualis and other simpler Rational Paradigms.

We strongly advise against any attempt to argue for or against an interpretation of the lexicon. This is a reasoned undertaking that obviates logic.

Disclaimer

Use at your own risk. Author makes no promise for fitness for use. User takes on all liabilities.

All of the above describe the lever. Levers can be confusing because we lack a simple language for them. While traditionally the lever has been explained as a fulcrum across which lies a bar. Part of the bar to one side of the fulcrum is described as the effort arm, and the part of the bar to the other side of the fulcrum is described as the resistance arm. This standard teeter-totter, balance, or scales of justice model is quite simple to grasp. Teaching anything more elaborate about levers quickly becomes complicated. The key to grasping all levers simply is to treat the bar that lies across the fulcrum as a bar in and of itself. The Chase is the name we will use, from here on in. If you adhere to these two encapsulations, the Fulcrum and the Chase, you will quickly see that we live in a world of fulcrums and chases. Even more startling will be the discovery that fulcrums and chases can be small. Molecules and atoms are aggregates of fulcrums and chases as are the components of atoms and the components that lie within those components. Levers can be so small that they simply lie outside of our current Capacity for Technologically Augmented Perception, TAP. The degree of smallness is limited only by our imaginations. The Rational Model Of Complex Mechanisms (The Model) asserts that indeed this increasing smallness is infinite.

The lever, a Chase bound to a Fulcrum, can take a variety of shapes. Some of the other common shapes are, pulleys, pendulums, wheels, and springs. We ourselves are a mass of levers. The most easily grasped are our joints and bones. Our knees, elbows, ankles, and shoulders are fulcrums; our legs and arms are Chases. We can simply encapsulate a large mass of levers that together form their own larger lever as a mechanism. The Rational Model Of complex Mechanisms (The Model) defines a Mechanism as follows.

A Mechanism is defined as an aggregate of levers that implement a lever.

As you think about this you can imagine or see around you that, clearly, there can be mechanisms that are aggregates of mechanisms. Automobiles, trains, firearms planes blenders lighters, are aggregates of mechanisms which we call machines. Bugs, birds, plants, life itself in addition to life’s capacities are aggregates of mechanisms. There are self-evident differences between inorganic and organic machines (life). Because this can become complicated, we will need to encapsulate these parts or components, these mechanisms of mechanisms, as simply as possible.

The, Innate, Intrinsic, and Abstract define The Three Conditions. Their differences are encapsulated by the flow through them. These differences are absolute. They describe the shape of flow. The striation of flow, the innate, the innate directly giving rise to the intrinsic, the intrinsic directly giving rise to the abstract, The Model asserts is the conditional shape of flow – Context.

The Model defines Context as the Conditional shape of flow.

The origin of Flow is a mystery as flow gave rise to the Universe. This flow is also known as Transcendence. The Innate Condition is always the initial motion of Transcendence.

Share this:

Like this:

As we were discussing the RMCM, throughout the past 14 years, we (Rick and me, Don) came to believe that we needed categories of “simplicity” to allow us to find the outermost construct of a given complexity, presuming Complexity grows inwardly. At some distance from where we are now we intend to apply the model to existing disciplines – Arithmetic, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Linguistics, etc. to provide an universal encapsulation that completes the missing pieces of a general theory of everything.

To that distant end, we introduce our first and simplest aggregate as well as our first investigative lexical tool. The Innate (Innate Condition).

The Innate is defined as : that which arises Directly out of Cause and Effect. Innate encapsulates an event, the action of closing a switch. The innate requires a capacity for flow whether or not the flow actually occurs. As you can see, things become quickly complicated; a door is like a switch. A gate is a switch, and a lightswitch is a switch but only when the power is on?

We intervene here with Condition. A Condition is a flow. The Innate Condition is any given flow arising Directly out of Cause and Effect.

Share this:

Like this:

Rational is defined as that which adheres to the rules that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into The Rational.

The Rational is defined as an implementation of the Principles that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into Rational Paradigms.

Property is defined as any given lever, mechanism, or machine.

This is a model, so the question “why” will remain a loose cannon and red hearing. Instead we will describe that which gets done, rather than speculating on what is possible to do.

This attempt to model Persistence (rather than existence) requires that we delve into gravity and mass. We have attempted to construct Robust definitions that build on simpler Attributes, Conditions, and Properties also defined in our lexicon. Eventually we will arrive back at a Rational encapsulation of another phenomenon that is still, to most, clearly as poorly understood as mass, gravity, Density, and Ambivalence. Our model arises as an attempt to understand Ambivalence. The model asserts that ambivalence is central to what it means to be Homo Sapiens : Terra Virtualis – Rational Paradigms.

Like this:

The above definition of Effect also asserts a source of or for “Difference”. Analogous to the Electrical term “switch closed” where the original source of difference is both voltage and amperes are free to flow. The RMCM asserts that Inwardly flowing Gravity is our source for closing difference, Difference Closed.
Within Delta when Gravity flows inwardly ∞- and does so in critically proximity to the outward flows, Cause, Timelets from each flow bind into a single unit of time. As time is bound, the passing inward and outward flows discretely snarl implementing a three dimensional unit of mass. Together time and flow at critical proximity discharge a DarkSpark. The DarkSpark is a discrete existential event of both mass and time or MassTime. We already know of this result as a point.

The above definition of Cause asserts a source of or for “Difference”. Analogous to the Electrical term “switch open” where the source of difference is both voltage and amperes. The RMCM asserts that Gravity is our source of difference.

From Delta when Gravity flows outwardly +∞ it opens difference. The RMCM asserts that this is Cause and Causation which lies outside of any universe already implemented or universe implemented yet to be implemented. The switch in this case is Time or more correctly Timelets – granules of pre-time in one dimension.

No Science No Math No Logic

The smallest construct in the known universe is The Point. The point occupies no “Space”. I could never accept space as a truth. Sure, we “use” the word, and most understand the reference. “Space” then must be an illusion or a concept. As we shed the shackles of this undefined construct, “Space”, and the many others that fill our minds, you will experience a range of emotions. Some will experience general discomfort, anxiety, claustrophobia and even vertigo. I tell you this as we will be shedding many shackles herein. I have been yelled at. laughed at, feared, and I have confounded too many to count. So, of the assertions to come herein, no arguing with others, mistreating others, or harming anyone by misusing the assertions including the lexicon, to blindside, bushwhack or deliberately confound.

I have known this since late childhood

4a : a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates
b (1) : a narrowly localized place having a precisely indicated position
• walked to a point 50 yards north of the building

(2): a particular place : LOCALITY
• have come from distant points
c (1) : an exact moment
• at this point I was interrupted

(2) : a time interval immediately before something indicated : VERGE
• at the point of death
d (1) : a particular step, stage, or degree in development
• had reached the point where nothing seemed to matter anymore

Like this:

The consensus is, “gravity arises from mass”, and we come to understand that the greater the mass the greater its gravity. Unfortunately, velocity also increases mass and does so without any significant increase in gravity. This is a paradox. This paradox still remains, and this may have led to a quagmire of compensating theories and complicated arithmetic. The most definitive of these work arounds is Schrödinger’s cat, which requires something called a state. To try and explain our world further we are enjoined by other words such as force (strong and weak), as well as …

We accept these words at face value, and in fact learning many more Words so familiar to us that their truth seems obvious or self-evident. As our children grow they will encounter many of these words and cope with the incumbent mathematics as well as concepts, ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, and theologies that quickly increase complication. {complexity} and:

All these and so many more essential and common words that the language of logical learning spreads among a thinning student base. Leaving many with poorly developed logical reasoning and unfinished explanations.

We have surrendered to a Logical Universe of only one infinity – the outwardly infinite. Imagine instead two infinities. A true Divinity that is both outwardly and inwardly infinite. Where would we even start? The RMCM asserts We start by encapsulation, and we call this Divinity “The Rational”.

In “The Rational” instead of gravity arising from mass the RMCM hypothesizes quite the opposite – that gravity is the source of mass. In this assertion whole categories of words are orphaned along with the connections they enjoyed. To implement the new paradigm we will need a new lexicon by which we can reorganize the language of our experiences and their connections.

Share this:

Like this:

Most of us accept that infinity is a term for that which is too expansive for measurement. This gift from Aristotle, infinity is viewed as that which extends endlessly outward from a given center, origin, or source,
While our minds can only presume the boundless, we seem to have learned to live with infinity, when encountering lines, Irrational numbers, and time. However we could accept absolute infinity if there is a compelling reason to do so.

The modern compelling experience for accepting infinity, as a truth, lies within software development. All programmers and developers are familiar with the “infinite loop”. This nasty little experience occurs when executing a computer program that contains a logical error. At some conjuncture a small loop of code designed to repeat a task continuously until a change signals stop. However, if when writing the code one either forgot to put in the “stop” or put in the “stop” incorrectly, then the repetition zips along with no graceful way out – reboot the computer or executing a previously design kill-switch to unconditionally stop the errant program. This infinite loop is a modern experience with the truth of infinity.

Other more traditional experiences with infinity are those of being lost at sea beyond sight of land, lost in the desert with no obvious way out, or lost in a very large forest. A pregnant woman in labor has had an experience of infinity. Children experience the idea of infinity waiting for Birthdays or Christmas.

Notwithstanding the above I will introduce you to hypothetical implementations of infinity that defy argument.

Share this:

Like this:

Experience is defined as any change to a given aggregate that becomes an attribute of that aggregate.

Experience joins us at the simplest of entry points into this model. Experience serves us, as defined, in any given context, for any given scope, extense, mass, or density of mass. Experience can be understood as both morphology and movement as well as attribution. Experience is God’s witness. We are experience, and this is what makes us God’s witness.